This monograph is a revision of Russell’s doctoral thesis conducted at
Union Theological Seminary under S. Dean McBride, Jr. By considering a
wide range of possibilities and methods, Russell argues that Exod
15:1-21, which he designates as the Song of the Sea, is a unified early
(1150 BCE) poem.

Chapter 2
consists of commentary with notes and translation. Chapter 3 considers
the unity of the poem, the structure, rhetorical and theological
function of the Song, the Song of Miriam (Exod 15:19-21), and the Song of
the Sea’s relationship to the Baal cycle. Chapter 4 argues for the Song as a key narrative shift in Exodus while
chapter 5 reinforces former linguistic arguments for an early date. Then
chapters 6-9 focus on Exod 15:1-18 to advance dating beyond linguistic
arguments. They consider historical allusions (arguing for Sinai as the
mountain in the Song), inner-biblical use of the Song (using a relative
chronology from texts the Song influenced to triangulate a date for the
Song), the Psalms of Asaph’s reliance on the Song as a dating method,
and finally its function as narrative in the HB. The strongest point of
this study is that an early date can be demonstrated from a wide variety
of methods and questions.

Despite
this contribution, arguments for the unity of the Song are at times
strained. Russell argues convincingly that the Song of Miriam (Exod
15:19-21) and the Song of Moses (Exod 15:1-18) are to be read together
in their canonical form (pp. 17, 24, 32-39). But in Chapters 6-9, even
though Russell’s introduction clearly claims a 12th
century date for all of Exod 15:1-21 he only uses the
Song of Moses (Exod 15:1-18) to establish a date of 1150 BCE (pp. 111,
130, 148), assuming the same date for the Song of Miriam without subjecting it to the
same analysis that Ex 15:1-18 receives. Beyond the brief suggestion that the Song of Miriam is early because it is like other victory dances (pp. 79-80), Russell must offer more reasons why the Song of Miriam is
as early as the Song of Moses if
they are not both assessed in Chapters 6-9.

Likewise,
Russell’s use of the Baal Cycle to respond to tensions between what are
commonly held to be earlier and later sections of the Song (vv.1-12, 18
and vv.13-17) need refinement; after Baal defeats Yam, the cycle shifts
to temple building before final victory and kingship. For Russell this
is similar to shifts between YHWH’s war with the enemies and YHWH’s
kingship (Exod 15:1-12, 18) interrupted by references to the effects of
this victory on Israel (Exod 15:13-17). Since, for Russell the Baal
cycle is a unified poem with shifts in content, a similar process proves
the unity of the Song of the Sea (p. 21). First, some assumptions of
shared narrative progression are problematic. Russell claims that Baal’s
victory, like YHWH’s, is not realized until his house is built. This is
questionable since Baal is claimed king as soon as Yamm dies (KTU
1.2 IV 34-35). Second, Russell does not admit that the order of the
tablets of the Cycle is a scholarly construct, nor offers why he
supports a particular reconstruction. Admitting more of a compositional
history within Exod 15:1-18 and between the Songs of Moses and Miriam
need not take away from Russell’s well-argued later chapters. Since
supporters of an early date have accepted some type of compositional
history, one often questions the need for maintaining a unified
composition.

Another
area for improvement is Russell’s examination of YHWH’s character.
Russell superimposes an understanding of YHWH on the Song that likely
does not fit into his 12th century context. Russell claims
YHWH is omnipotent because he is the divine warrior (p. 50). If the
Song’s relation to the Baal Cycle is any indication, YHWH could be a
warrior deity who, while unique among the gods (Exod 15:11 // KTU
1.2 I 23-25), need not be considered higher than El. Continuing to argue
for YHWH’s incomparability, Russell claims YHWH is concerned with Egypt
and Israel while Baal does not have any relation to human history (p.
40). This ignores that the rising of the storm god would have great
significance for an ancient society. Russell needs to bring his
understanding of a 12th century YHWH in conversation with
texts like LXX Deut 32:8-9 and more recent scholarship on early Yahwhism
and Israelite religion. Such considerations could even help reinforce an
early date.

Envisioning a more developed YHWH in a 12th century context
continues when Russell sees YHWH as a creator deity in the Song of the
Sea. This five-line suggestion requires further development and Russell
could have used a detailed study by McCarthy to support his idea of a
creator deity in the Song. [Dennis McCarthy, “Creation Motifs in Ancient
Hebrew Poetry” in Creation in the Old Testament (ed. Bernhard W.
Anderson; Issues in Religion and Theology 6; Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1984), 74-89].

Other
important bibliographical elements are absent. While Sinai is identified
as the mountain of the Song, an alternative like Shiloh is given too
brief consideration and does not consult significant contributions such
as Donald G. Schley, Shiloh: A Biblical City in History and Tradition
(JSOTSupp 63; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989) or Tryvegge Mettinger,
“YHWH Sabaoth, the Heavenly King on the Earthly Throne” in Studies In
the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (ed. T. Ishida;
Eisenbrauns: Indiana, 1982) 109-38.

Despite
the above, Russell’s work is useful in expanding Song of the Sea study
beyond a single methodological position and providing more arguments for
an early date of Exod 15:1-18. While there are some problems in seeking
breadth rather than more detailed analysis, Russell shows that a broader
study can yield results.